DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The first inventor to file provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ) apply to any application for patent, and to any patent issuing thereon, that contains or contained at any time—
(A) a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013 wherein the effective filing date is:
(i) if subparagraph (ii) does not apply, the actual filing date of the patent or the application for the patent containing a claim to the invention; or
(ii) the filing date of the earliest application for which the patent or application is entitled, as to such invention, to a right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119, 365(a), or 365(b) or to the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c); or
(B) a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120 , 121, or 365(c), to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time a claim as defined in paragraph (A), above.
Status of the Claims
Claim(s) 1-9, 12, and 14-20 is/are pending. Claim(s) 10-11 and 13 is/are canceled. Claim(s) 1-9, 12, and 14-19 are allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/5/2026, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections of claim 10 has/have been withdrawn due to the Applicant’s amendment.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/5/2026, with respect to the Double Patenting rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Double Patenting rejections of claims 1-20 has/have been withdrawn due to the Terminal Disclaimer filed and approved on 6/5/2026.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art does not teach the amended language, particularly Argento's #1330 is not a side of the chamber and Argento does not teach a posterior inner surface that is rotationally symmetric (Applicant's Response on 6/5/2026, page 7-8).
Examiner notes the claim requirement is "the fluid-filled optic chamber defined in between" the anterior and posterior elements. There is no requirement indicating what elements are those making up the surfaces of the chamber.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Argento's #1330 is not a side of the chamber) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to the inner surface, Argento was/is not used to teach this element. Since Applicant has not argued the rejection made by the Examiner, this argument is moot.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 6/5/2026 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the FOR citations lined through were not provided in English or with an English equivalent and the NPL citation was not provided. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
All non-lined through citations were considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 5, recites “first haptic”, which should be “a first haptic”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Argento, et al (Argento) (US 2018/0177589 A1) in view of Argal, et al (Argal) (US 2016/0058552).
Regarding Claim 20, a toric accommodating intraocular lens (e.g. abstract, [0013], [0507]), comprising:
an optic portion (e.g. Figures 13A-F, annotated Figure 13C below) comprising an anterior element (e.g. annotated Figure 13C below; optic portion below, as shown, the dashed line), a posterior element (e.g. annotated Figure 13C below, #1330), and a fluid-filled optic chamber defined in between the anterior element and the posterior element (e.g. annotated Figure 13C below, chamber between the anterior and posterior elements), wherein the posterior element has a posterior optical surface (e.g. Figure 13D, surface of #1330),
wherein the posterior optical surface is shaped such that a radius of curvature of the posterior optical surface differs along different optical surface meridians (e.g. [0366], [0507], [0014], lens #1330 is toric and thus inherently has a steep meridian (lesser radius of curvature) and a flat meridian (greater radius of curvature)), and
wherein the posterior element has a posterior element thickness as measured from the posterior optical surface to the posterior inner surface (e.g. Figure 13C), wherein the posterior element thickness varies periodically around the posterior element (toric lenses as discussed supra; toric lenses inherently have this variability).
Argento discloses the invention substantially as claimed but fails to teach the posterior element further comprises a posterior inner surface that is rotationally symmetric.
Argal teaches a fixed lens with a toric surface and an aspheric surface opposite the toric surface (e.g. [0089]).
Argal and Argento are concerned with the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, namely IOLs having toric surfaces.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Argento’s fixed lens such that the side of the lens opposing the toric lens is aspheric (here, the posterior inner surface) as taught by Argal in order to correct or mitigate corneal astigmatism and presbyopia (e.g. Argal, [0088]).
The Examiner notes aspheric lenses are inherently rotationally symmetric.
PNG
media_image1.png
500
890
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 13C, Argento
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESLIE A LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7044. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM, MST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, THOMAS BARRETT can be reached at (571)272-4746. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LESLIE A LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774 6/22/2026
Prosecution Insights